text:
Do fighter jets have deicing in their wings?
If there is such thing as deicing for fighters? If so, is bleed air or electric heating preferred? I could not imagine that a $50MLN fighter jet would not be able to get the ice off its wings.

No they do not, nor are there any modern fighters that I am aware of that are intended to operate in icing conditions, nor would they pass the FAA’s certification processes for flight into known icing.
Below is an example from the Grumman F-14D NATOPS Flight Manual, Section 18 - Extreme Weather Operations. The basics are that Tomcat aircrews are advised to avoid areas where icing is probable and that extended flight in an icing environment is considered an emergency.

Icing conditions should be avoided whenever possible.
Before flight, check freezing levels and areas of probable icing from weather service.
The primary concern with flying in icing conditions is ice accumulation sufficient to cause engine damage. Ice accumulation on engine probes located between the engine guide vanes and above the number three inlet ramp is not detectable from the cockpit. Aircraft maneuvers or landing impact can dislodge accumulated ice and can cause severe FOD to the engine. Visual detection of icing on exterior surfaces and/or illumination of the pilot’s INLET ICE caution light should be treated as indications of the potentially more serious problems described above. The following precautionary action should be taken immediately in known or suspected icing environments:

ANTI−ICE switch - ORIDE/ON.
CABIN AIR DEFOG lever - FWD DEFOG.
Engine instruments - Monitor Frequently.
Carefully monitor rpm and EGT indications. A reduction of rpm or an increase in EGT accompanied by a loss of thrust is an indication of engine icing.
Avoid clouds and other areas of visible precipitation.
If unable to avoid precipitation, adjust aircraft Mach or altitude as necessary to remain outside of the icing zone shown in Figure 18−1.

Extended operations in icing conditions should be considered an emergency situation. If time and fuel permit, a descent below the freezing level is recommended. If unable, altitudes above approximately 25,000 feet or ambient temperatures below −30°C are generally free of icing conditions. If inadvertent or unavoidable operation in known or suspected icing conditions has occurred, an effort should
be made to eliminate the ice before landing by remaining well below the freezing level for an extended period of time.
WARNING: Icing conditions can cause heavy ice accumulation in the inlet ramp areas or on engine probes and the compressor face. Aircraft maneuvers and arrested landings may dislodge this accumulation and cause extensive engine FOD or failure. A straight−in field landing is preferred. Minimum power setting after landing is recommended.

The F-16 A/B flight manual offers similar advice:

Flight in areas of icing should be avoided whenever possible. If icing conditions are anticipated or cannot be avoided, tum ANTI ICE switch to ON ~ and PROBE HEAT switch to PROBE HEAT. Frequently check the aircraft leading edges for indication of ice buildup. Make all throttle movements slower than normal when in potential icing conditions to reduce possibility of engine stalls and/or stagnation. Consider diverting to an alternate field if required to avoid icing conditions.

Fighter aircraft, with their thin, low aspect wings and sharp leading edges are actually more susceptible to ice accumulation than other kinds of aircraft wings.  They do have one advantage in the sheer climbing power and maneuvering capability to get out of an icing area with a slow to moderate accumulation rate.  Fast ice accumulation could be very dangerous to an fighter, especially during low speed operations, i.e., descent into a terminal environment and landing in marginal weather.

“ANTI-ICE Switch” is for the engine inlet only?

Then what do fighter pilots do if flight in icing conditions becomes an operational necessity?

That’s not an operational necessity. If you’re talking about combat flying in icing conditions, it’s generally not done. And neither can the guys on the other side.  “All weather” is not quite what you think it is in terms of fighter airplanes.

Good question! As it turns out, fighter jets do not have deicing equipment on the flight surfaces such as wings and stabilizer, but they usually do have it around the engine inlet(s).
The reason is that for the most part jet fighters operate at altitudes where icing is not a problem, and the pilots know to avoid conditions that could lead to icing. Icing on the inlets is another matter, and needs to be prevented to avoid ice being sucked into the engine and damaging it.
Also, many fighters are designed so that if ice does form, it will not affect performance as drastically as it would other types of aircraft.
Finally, when there are conditions on the ground that could cause ice buildup on the aircraft, they are generally treated with a generous dose of deicing fluid to remove it just before taking off.

“Also, many fighters are designed so that if ice does form, it will not affect performance as drastically as it would other types of aircraft.”  Please cite a source for this as it contradicts basic aerodynamics.

@Carlo with enough thrust, you can make a brick fly

I’m sorry, but slogans like that do no qualify as an answer.

It's not about basic aerodynamics, it's about the fact that fighter are, by design, much better equipped to exit icing conditions than other types of aircraft.

And @CarloFelicione if you are looking for an "answer" kindly create your own question.

Again, citation needed here.  I have never encountered any information that would confirm that hypothesis and a great deal of information which would suggest otherwise.

There is no citation. There are plenty of instances of modern fighter pilots saying that the standard response to finding yourself icing conditions is to get out by using power.

@CarloFelicione: Please calculate the stagnation point heating for Mach 0.9 and look at typical icing temperatures. Flying fast enough will suffice to remove the ice in most conditions or prevent the build-up in the first place. As Juan says, power helps.

Peter Kampf,  that’s little help to most fighters, which are not flying at those speeds at altitude’s were icing is normally encountered in the NAS.   Unless it’s an emergency those airplanes are not exceeding 300 knots indicated at low altitudes where icing is likely.

Well, this thread was good for a laugh. :)

@CarloFelicione, if you prefer the non-slogan version, most fighters have a thrust-to-weight ratio approaching or exceeding 1.  With that sort of engine power available, aerodynamics is an optional extra.

@Mark Eh, no.  High thrust to weight ratios or not, airplanes like that still conform to the laws of physics.  Try to operate outside of those or get complacent or overconfident about an airframe’s capabilities, casually ignoring the limitations and thinking you can use thrust as a crutch and you can pay dearly for it as this Raptor pilot found out.  https://www.kunsan.af.mil/Portals/6/180413-PACAF-JB%20Elmendorf-Richardson-Alaska-AIB%20NARRATIVE%20REPORT.pdf?ver=2018-11-15-200849-187

I think @Mark quite correct in stating that in many designs. the ability of the engine(s) to generate an excess of thrust can very much compensate for what aerodynamics or the "laws of physics" cannot.

I'm not really sure I understand where everyone's problem with @CarloFelicione is here. He has taken a statement of “Also, many fighters are designed so that if ice does form, it will not affect performance as drastically as it would other types of aircraft.” and has asked for a citation for that. The fact is, if a fighter flies in an icing area at relatively low speeds, its performance will be as negatively affected as any other aircraft. The fact that a fighter has enough thrust to fly through the icing zone does not help the pilot who allows their aircraft to ice over in the first place.

And if, in fact, that statement is true then a citation attesting to the fact should be reasonably able to be located and edited in to the answer.

One other aspect of fighter aircraft that may explain why they do not have de-icing gear:
Such gear would add to the weight and complexity of the aircraft. Fighter aircraft are on the bleeding edge of technology, where even a small advantage over an opponent can make the difference between victory and defeat.
For example, deicing boots on the leading edge of the wings could degrade performance slightly, or could adversely affect wing performance if they are damaged due to combat.
Put simply, there is nothing on a fighter aircraft that doesn't contribute to its fighting ability, because a potential adversary builds their fighters to the same basic standard.

I think you take the myth of "every ounce on a fighter more valuable than equal weights in gold" far too seriously. All modern fighters are designed with a huge weight budget surplus to meet future upgrades, especially in the radar and avionics departments, so I'm pretty certain there's plenty of weight to spare for a leading edge wing deicing. Of course not the rubber boots type, they are only for the subsonic blunt wing shapes. But definitely an electrical type if only the need arises. As a proof, there is plenty of room for several UHF antennas in the leading edge of F15 and F22.

fighters are only the bleeding edge of tech when they are designed. f22 looks possibly old school by the standard of f35. It doesn't even use the right inlet. Plenty of f16s still in use and fighting wars and winning them with their primitive 486 controllers.

What makes a military aircraft successful is not its design, it is its pilot(s).


text:
What is the reason the AC FAN or SYS is one of the first things checked on the A320 family?
The following sentence is focused on A320 Family because I don’t know what happens on all Airbus aircraft:
Watching some video and flying in some simulator (like MSFS2020), when you push the BAT button, all lights in the cockpit and the screen will turn on, but after few seconds you can hear the sound of some vent, which actually blows air inside cockpit (I think).
My question is: Why does this happened? Why the AC FAN or SYS is one of the first things checked on plane? And if it is (I mean is really AC SYS TEST) what will happen if the test go in fault?

There is no particular check for AC in A320. If ventilation shuts down during cockpit preparations when batteries are switched off it means you don’t have AC power (EXT ground power or APU). The battery off/on check is there to check battery bus charging relays.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What's the angle and weather conditions required for this to take place?
Sometimes when flying one can see this type of rainbow circle thing around the shadow of their plane.
Often the rainbow thing is projected onto clouds and then it contrasts and is visible clearly.
What's exactly the reason behind this type of artefact? I know how rainbows work but I didn't understand the circle rainbow around the shadow of the plane.
Is it only visible from some seats of the plane and not all?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
During an IPC, is there any alternative to doing a precision approach?
My friend's plane is IFR certified, but does not have either an ILS receiver or a GPS receiver, either one of which is required to fly a precision approach.  As he can't fly a precision approach in his plane, and such an approach is required to be flown during an instrument proficiency check (IPC), does that require him to find another plane in which to take the test?
Alternatively, can he take the test in his plane with a limitation being placed on the signoff to the effect that he is not qualified to fly precision approaches? Or does it not matter that a precision approach cannot be flown?

As far as I can see, there's no way to avoid flying a precision approach during an IPC. 61.57(d) says:

The instrument proficiency check must consist of the areas of
  operation and instrument tasks required in the instrument rating
  practical test standards.

The instrument ACS requires a precision approach, as you said, and it's also in the checklist in AC 61-98C, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check, and the FAA's accompanying instructor guidance. So I think it's fairly clear that the FAA requires it as part of an IPC.
As for limitations, the FAA's AC 61-65 Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors doesn't mention any that are specific to an instrument rating. I've never heard of a 'non-precision only' instrument rating.
I can only suggest that your friend finds another aircraft. The 'good' news is that once he's current again, he can maintain currency indefinitely with only non-precision approaches and avoid another IPC.

The most cost effective solution for your friend is to find a Flight Training Device (FTD).  A local FBO charges 10/hr for the FTD, and when you want to log time in the device, you pay for an instructor at 40/hr.
The entire IPC can be accomplished with the FTD, EXCEPT: a.) multi-engine ops, b.) circle-to-land and c.) landings.
So practically, your friend would "fly" with an instructor (CFI-I, GI may not), logging that time, and accomplishing tasks relevant to the IPC. Then they would go to his plane and a landing would be performed, possibly with a circle-to-land.
This way your friend doesn't have to rent another plane, and he will reduce the time spent in his plane considerably. It is much less expensive to run a FTD (sim) at $10/hr than it is fly his plane.
To address your question of a restricted endorsement, unfortunately, an IPC is an IPC and there is no recognized way to accomplish a limited IPC. Except he could petition the FAA for a waiver. At one time, requirements for NDB navigation was dropped if the aircraft lacked a NDB. (You can't imagine how often our ADFs became INOP the day before an instrument check ride. I didn't agree with that, but lotsa people felt insecure flying NDB approaches.)  So your friend could petition the FAA to, in his case, waive the precision approach requirement.  But in my opinion, it is far easier to just run to a school having a FTD, and do part or as much as he wants of the IPC there, and then demonstrate the landing part(s) in his airplane.
Addendum #1: In 1980 the FAA legal team issued a letter clarifying that a Ground Instructor - Instrument could provide instruction in a simulator, meeting the training requirements for Part 61 ratings.  In 2010, in a similar letter, they reversed their position. Loosely they stated that simulator (or FTD) training was flight instruction and required a flight instructor rating. Prior to 2010, it was possible for a Ground Instructor - Instrument to perform any approved training in a simulator, but not today. In general, the Ground Instructor rating has been depreciated.  However, if one teaches ground courses, where there are lots of attendees, it is convenient to have because it reduces the administrative burden of tracking written test results. This is relevant, because a CFI-I is required for performing the portion of an IPC which might be done in a sim/FTD.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Can a class 1 medical certificate be obtained when glasses are needed to achieve 20/20?
Will I be able to obtain an FAA/DGCA class 1 medical certificate if I have a power of -5.75 and -6.25 in both my eyes?
It says "you should be able to maintain 20/20 vision with/without glasses" and yes, I can achieve vision with glasses.

Yes, you can (provided you don't have any other disqualifying conditions).
14 CFR 67.103 Eye

(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses (spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/20 vision, the person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.

(b) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If age 50 or older, near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at both 16 inches and 32 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses.

In your case, you will have a limitation placed on your certificate that says that you must wear corrective lenses while performing the duties under your Class-1 medical certificate.

Thx. BTW is there a limit for the maximum power u must have in each eye (excluding JAR)

The FAR only states that it must be "correctable to 20/20". However if you have some kind of issue that causes issues like Amblyopia, you will need to get a special issuance. It is really rare for an AME or the FAA to reject a pilot based on vision problems unless they are degenerative or uncorrectable.

Or indicative of an underlying condition.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is there a formula to calculate take off runway distance for commercial planes?
I want to be able to calculate the take off runway distance that a plane needs depending on factors such as weight and plane size, etc. I know that graphs exist in the pilot handbook to do this but is there a specific formula that I could perhaps put into a program?

These calculations are quite complex because they take into consideration a lot of different variables, just off the top of my head:

Take off weight, which includes FOB
Runway length
Runway condition
Field elevation
Air temperature
Air pressure
Wind
Engine type and airplane configuration

Based on those (and I am sure many more), you have to calculate at minimum V1, VR and V2, and possibly others.
These calculations are looked up from a table.

It's not just one single formula, there is a whole procedure that needs to be followed in order to get to the TO distance. From Torenbeek Appendix K:

For a given configuration of weight, altitude, temperature and aeroplane configuration (flap setting), compute:

The takeoff run: compute the distance required to accelerate to the moment of lift-off, plus part of the airborne distance to a height of 35 ft.
Emergency distance: distance to accelerate to critical engine fail speed, plus distance to brake to a standstill.
The TO field length is the greatest of the emergency distance, TO distance to 35 ft with engine failure, and (all-engine TO distance times 1.15) to reach 35 ft.

The Appendix K referenced above contains a more detailed procedure for carrying out these steps.


text:
Why not use radio to communicate with ramp marshall instead of marshalling signals?
Why don’t we just use radio to communicate with the ramp marshall instead of all the hand signals? They could just say move a little left or right, stop etc instead of learning all the hand signals.

Hi Parth, and welcome to Av.SE!

Have you seen stand guidance systems? That's sort of the logical conclusion. They use optical systems, LIDAR, computer vision, to display guidance without a human. The marshaller just observes and activates an emergency stop button if something goes wrong.

They could just say move a little left ... no, not that left, the other one ...

Not answering because this is from a completely different scenario, but when I help my dad back up a trailer, we've found that hand signals work much better than radios. One reason is that unless you use code words, a hand signal is quicker than a description of the desired movement. It's helpful to have a radio, but we use it as a backup in case he can't see me in the mirror for some reason.

There are several good reasons:

Hand signals are actually very easy to learn.

Reacting to a visual signal is instinctive and doesn't require knowledge of any spoken language.

Batteries don't run out on hand signals.  (although at night a lit wand could die...)

You will never run out of radio frequencies with visual signals.

You will never have radio interference from somebody else transmitting on the same frequency.

You will never get stepped on by another radio or intercom transmission.

In short, there's no compelling reason to fix a very reliable system that isn't broken.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Safety.
With hand signals, the pilot and marshal know exactly who they are communicating with.  With radio, you'll need extra protocol so that they know who they are talking to.  On a shared radio channel, that means callsigns with every transmission.  With individual (non-shared) channels, they still have to figure out which channel to use and exchange callsigns at least once.
Skip these steps, or have them go wrong, and eventually two planes are going to be moving at the same time, each being monitored by the opposite plane's marshaller.  When the marshal makes an urgent call to stop and the wrong plane stops, it'll be a bad day for everyone.

Or worse, the right plane doesn't stop...


text:
Where can a digital reading of the pitch/attitude of a plane be found?
Where can a digital reading of the pitch of plane be found?
E.g  on Microsoft flight simulator, on the attitude dial, the pitch of the plane (e.g 10 degrees up above horizon) has to be manually read from the visualisation of where the dot is.
Where is the digital numerical reading that shows the pitch is 10 degrees?
If there isn't a digital reading of the pitch and you have to manually read it from the visualisation of the dot - why isn't there a digital number that is also shown to make it easier to to know and get an accurate reading?

In your flying what would you do differently if you knew your pitch attitude was 9.1 degrees instead of knowing it was just slightly less than 10?  Or what would you do if it were 10.2 instead of “close to 10”?

I have been recently looking at the certification requirements of civilan digital AHRS units (the data source for the pitch angle). These units are quite inaccurate. Therefore displaying the exact numeric pitch-angle would probably suggest a data precision which simply is not given. Therefore in addition simply not being needed, I guess you also do not really want to display this number in order not to confuse the pilot.

@U_flow, yes, but any inaccuracies of the digits will be reflected in the visual indicator.  In any case, actual accuracy to the horizon is less important than reliably displaying relative change.

@Jim In my car I have an analog and a digital speedometer. They are reading sligthly different speeds (a couple mph). Some reasons I use digital whenever I can: 1) numbers are in the same place (vs. needle tip location being speed-dependent) 2) numbers are way bigger 3) numbers are brighter (esp. in the night) 4) numbers allow finer precision (e.g. when setting cruise control) 5) numbers allow for easier comparison (e.g. road signs and navigation display speed in numbers) 6) I like numbers. Nothing revolutionary, just slightly more comfortable and slightly easier for my brain to process.

@levantpied - Numbers don't actually allow finer precision.  A digital display can only display exactly 10 or exactly 11.  An analog needle can show a difference in two speeds closer together than that.  It's also easier to spot a trend.  I'll see my needle start to move before the number changes. And in an airplane, knowing an exact pitch angle  is meaningless because you never are trying to maintain an known numeric pitch angle.  You trim a plane to whatever angle is found to maintain altitude. Besides, the amount of trim added or removed during minute trim adjustments is < than a 1 deg.

There's not one in any typical cockpit I can think of, although it is a parameter stored on the flight data recorder.
The attitude indicator that you refer to is the best instrument for avoiding spatial disorientation. That is, even if the pilot is in thick cloud or with G forces trying to fool their body into thinking they're rapidly climbing, the pilot simply looks at this instrument which has a visual representation of whether the aircraft is pointing up or down, in a banked turn or level. In instrument flying, the pilot is continually scanning between the bank and pitch indications to keep the plane doing what they want it to be doing.
Replacing this instrument with a series of numbers to interpret is a big step backwards in safety, for the simple reason that pilots are not computers. Pilots are susceptible to human errors and in times of stress need information presented to them in the simplest manner possible. Having to think "wait does that number mean my bank angle 20 degrees to the left or to the right?" is easy enough in isolation, but combine that with every other activity they've got on and you will end up with fatalities at some point.
I don't think it would be too hard to add a digital readout in addition to the attitude indicator, but there's not really any benefit. The existing instrument is easy enough to read within a degree or two, which is accurate enough for all actions. I've never met a pilot who can hold an attitude to a tolerance of less than a degree anyway.

It is also possibly relevant that classical mechanical artificial horizons would have had a low precision so any readout to decimal points would be meaningless and or misleading in any case. The markings used are also focusing on speed and clarity, with classical 'sky' and 'not sky' markings being by far the most significant.


text:
How many US airman's certificates are revoked, roughly, per year?
There is a lot of literature devoted to FAA enforcement (see https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/pic-archive/faa-enforcement/faa-enforcement)
What is the threshold for revocation? The thing that specifically got me interested was a near collision runway video - assuming it wasn't an ATC/taxing instructions error, would this type of thing be sufficient? I'm also interested in what the appropriate penalty would be for that

Hello there, I see two questions: one in the question title and another in the question body. If you can edit the post to narrow down to one question, it would help you get a better answer.

Certificates are hardly ever permanently revoked completely. Usually they are suspended with conditions, like recurrent training and a "709 Ride". For example the pilots that got distracted and missed their destination (and ATC calls) initially had their licenses revoked, but they were allowed to reapply for them after 10 months.

FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B lists violations and the civil penalties (fines) and certificate actions which are to be imposed by the FAA. The rest of the document also discusses how investigations of certain violations are undertaken and thresholds. That order gives much more detail than you'd ever want to know.
A common theme is revocation is called for when the action is intentional.
These are what are the FAA initially charges you with, so they are higher than what actually happens. A certificate action is either negotiated as a settlement, or if it can't, it goes before an administrative law judge, then appealed to the NTSB, then appealed to the Federal court system.


text:
How can V1 and VR (rotate) speeds be calculated?
I want to learn about how can the V1 and VR (rotate) speeds be calculated for take off. And which factors are affecting this calculation?
Basically it may depends on the aircraft weight, runway length, engine capacity and flap rates. But what is the other factors and what are the V1 and VR formulas. Is it possible to explain, e.g. for a Boeing 737 which is taking off from a 6,791 ft (2,070 m) runway in good weather conditions?

Some additional good information on these V speeds are here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/3564/69

There is no general equation/function that you can use to calculate V1/Vr... the manufacturer test out the aircraft's performance during certification, and you then compare your current aircraft and conditions against the known manufacturer's aircraft and conditions to get your results.
V1 is the border between accelerate for takeoff, and STOPPPPPP! by the end of the runway.
* Acceleration is dependent upon the engine thrust being used, the atmosphere providing oxygen for combustion and nitrogen for jetflow mass, the aircraft's mass that has to be accelerated, the drag of the used flap setting, and the possible drag of the runway surface and slope.
* The STOPPP! aspect is dependent upon the drag of the flaps and speedbrakes, the drag of the runway slope and surface, and the mass of the airplane.
Vr is nothing to do with V1... it's just a margin below V2 (5kts? 10kts? depending on thrust setting) that allows you to rotate earlier than V2 but still accelerate (in the air) to then achieve V2 by 15m/50ft. And V2 depends on the weight of the aircraft and the flap setting.

Vr is pretty well set, for a given aircraft, by the gross weight and flap setting. It will be the cap on V1 -- if your calculated V1 is 160 but you plan to rotate at 140, "stopping at 150" no longer has meaning -- if you see 150 or 160 knots while still on the runway, you've deviated from the plan.  (If you are getting into "improved climb" performance, then relationships get more complicated, but that's a fairly advanced topic beyond this discussion.)

This is a great question that I pondered myself  while getting my multi-engine rating.
V1 is determined by several factors but the one most important factor is called the "accelerate / decelerate distance". In other words, the distance it will take to stop the aircraft before the aircraft runs out of runway or continue safely into the air.
Ordinarily you might think V1 is the same, but "lower" performance and "higher" performance aircraft behave differently during takeoff. A comparatively low performance aircraft such as single engine recip will have V1 and VR equal. But high performance aircraft such as a turbo prop or jet will have a V1 quite different from VR.
Acceleration is a speed - or more accurately a change in speed over time designated by delta-a meaning that an aircraft accelerating before stall speed will continue to INCREASE in speed for a short period of time even if there is an engine thrust failure - in layman's terms this is called momentum.
Therefore, in moderately or high performance powered aircraft V1 and VR will be different and the manufacture will base the value on flight tests.
Lets consider two examples. A single engine airplane like like a Cessna 150 will have V1 and VR at the stall speed. so the pilot pulls back at V1 and by the time the aircraft lifts off the ground it has gained an additional 5kts an climbs at V1+5kt. In a jet, the pilot will reach VR 10 or 20kts before V1 but even if the engine fails, momentum will carry the aircraft past V1 and safely the aircraft will reach flying speed without additional thrust.
Therefore, depending on what we might call excess (yes a slightly inaccurate term) thrust, VR occurs prior to V1 because of delta-a (high acceleration).
For more powerful aircraft, VR is a moving target. B747 have so much power that if they are light weight or have a long runway, they are authorized to use less than full power for the takeoff to conserve engine wear and noise abatement. Therefore VR is different for each takeoff.
Update: As noted below, for the single engine scenario I should have used VS not V1. And, yes powerful aircraft have a Delta-A - change in acceleration, that is different from their velocity. As an example, earths gravity (32ft/sec/sec) is an acceleration not a pure velocity.

"A single engine airplane like like a Cessna 150 will have V1 and vr at the stall speed." This doesn't make sense, at least if V1 (as I have understood it) is the speed at or above which takeoff rejection will result in a runway overrun no matter what else you do. That would be a function of speed, breaking capability (including runway surface conditions), and weight.

With a sufficiently long runway, then, you might at best have to try really hard simply to keep the plane on the ground long enough to even reach V1. If you can get back down on the runway without turning around, and land safely, then surely by definition you never exceeded V1 because the remaining runway length provided adequate stopping distance?

I'm sorry, but "V1" is undefined for a single engine aircraft, since the ability to lose the critical engine & continue the takeoff only applies when the aircraft has multiple engines.  A single might have a refusal speed above which a stop on the remaining runway cannot be completed -- don't abort above this speed for a system failure, perhaps; but if THE engine fails on the runway, you're stopping, no matter what your speed!

@RalphJ To a first order approximation, I would expect "delta-a" to be the second derivative of position, where velocity is the first derivative. Change in position (over time) is velocity; change in velocity (over time) is acceleration (or deceleration). It's also worth keeping in mind that velocity is a vector, while speed is a scalar quantity.

@MichaelKjörling  Delta A would be the delta in acceleration, just as delta V is the delta in velocity (a.k.a. acceleration).  So Delta A would be more like the THIRD derivative of position.  If the aircraft has a (more or less) steady acceleration with takeoff thrust set, you'd get a drop in acceleration (and thus a large, negative, delta A) at the point an engine fails.  Beyond that, I doubt operators have much use for delta A.  Engineers, probably have more. You can see "V" on instruments, you can see "A" on a HUD; delta A, not so much.


text:
Does a Boeing 737 NG have Air Data Modules for the standby Pitot probe and static pressure port?
In other words, how does the ISFD calculate the air data and IR parameters? Or is the ISFD an ADM by itself?

Standby instruments provide a critical backup function and are totally independent from the primary air data system. The dedicated standby probes are connected directly to the standby display unit which is capable of converting the pressure inputs into airspeed and altitude. They only require a 28V DC input from the EMER/BATT power bus to operate.
Here's the description diagram from the Boeing maintenance manual:


text:
Localizer beam protection
During mixed operation, will an aircraft crossing the end of the runway affect the localizer transmission?

(Istanbul airport, source.)

For instance, when runway 17L is in use, will an aircraft crossing the runway from intersection C1A affect the localizer signal?

And what about the status of the other intersection such as C4A, C5A?

Related: What is the difference between the ILS Critical Area and the ILS Sensitive Area?

Aircraft crossing a runway act as reflectors and obstacles, and therefore affect LLZ/GP/DME beams and signals. Specially when close to the related transmitters, because the relative size of the aircraft is large compared to the beam. In your case crossing the runways can affect the GP/DME of one runway and the LLZ of the opposite runway.
ILS ground protection is described in ICAO Annex 10, volume I, section 2.1.9 of attachment C. ILS sensitive and critical areas (both sometimes known as critical areas) are determined during airport study. They depends on the ILS characteristics (e.g. separate frequency for the clearance signal and number of elements in the antenna array). Critical areas are proposed in FAA Order 6750.16 - Sitting criteria for ILS, e.g. for the localizer:

The ILS critical areas can be protected by fences for area B and by holdings for A, specially for CAT II/III. Such holdings are depicted by a specific symbol:

Source.
Aircraft will hold at A12/A13 when the runway is operated in CAT II/III, while AB12/AB13 can be used for CAT I. As there are no CAT II/III holdings on your chart, it means existing holdings are deemed far enough to operate ILS in CAT II.
As for landed aircraft leaving the runway, there are ATC procedures also mentioned in ICAO Doc 013 on all weather operations:

7.5.6.4.1 To ensure that the integrity of the guidance signal radiated by the ILS is maintained during aircraft approaches, all vehicles and aircraft on the ground should remain outside the ILS critical and sensitive areas. The ILS critical areas must be clear of all vehicles, persons and aircraft at all times.
7.5.6.4.2 These objectives are normally achieved by providing appropriate spacing between successive landing and/or departing aircraft. This may frequently be in excess of the spacing normally used and this may affect the capacity of the aerodrome.
To accord with the basic
requirements, the spacing specified should provide sufficient separation between successive
approaching aircraft, normally to allow the leading aircraft to land, to vacate the runway,
and to clear the ILS localizer sensitive area before the following aircraft reaches a point 2 NM from touchdown.
Some States have found that spacing of the order of 10 NM between successive aircraft may be necessary. At aerodromes where the traffic density is low or
where the range of the approaching aircraft cannot be monitored by radar, the separation should be increased to enable the leading aircraft to clear the runway and ILS localizer sensitive area before the following aircraft reaches a point 4 NM from touchdown, i.e. about
the position of the outer marker (or equivalent DME position).

Beams are affected in two ways:

Obstruction decreases the strength of the transmitted signal, but doesn't change the course alignment information.

Reflection and refraction are more dangerous as they create additional paths between the transmitter and the aircraft. These paths are longer than the line of sight path.
LLZ and GP antenna array transmits three signals (CSB, SBO+, SBO-), and a clearance signal, in varying proportion from one side of the LLZ antenna array to the other. Each side can be affected differently, and the alignment, or the linearity, may be affected, due to the phase shift introduced by the longer paths (more on ILS).
The impact on DME is likely not significant as the DME receiver is able to identify the first reply train (LoS) and ignore the delayed ones.


text:
Can anyone identify this early biplane from 1920?
The photo was taken in August, 1920, and I believe it was taken in France.

The plane nosedived just after this photo was taken (I have 3 other photos showing the wreck). The crash didn't look terrible, as it doesn't seem it actually took off, but 'tripped' on a railroad track during taxi.
Call letters on the side read "F-ADAY", and I think it's a Farman F.60 Goliath, but I can't confirm that. What do the call letters mean?
Also, would there be any way to find out more about this specific aircraft?

You're right, it's a Farman F.60 Goliath. It was used by the French airline Cie Messageries Aériennes (CMA), to carry both passengers, mail and freight.

CMA
CMA was founded by Bréguet (aircraft manufacturer), other shareholders being Blériot (aircraft engineer and inventor, first to cross the Channel), Renault (founder of Renault automobile manufacture) and Caudron (aircraft manufacturer, later merged into Renault).

Source.
The airline was based at Le Bourget aerodrome and had initially a service with Lille (north of France), but exended quickly to Croydon (London, UK) to compete with Farman airlines, then Bruxelles (Belgium) and Amsterdam (Netherlands). After several mergers, it would be a part of Air France, created in 1933 to compete with the KLM created in 1920 and the larger Deutsche Lutf Hansa created in 1926.
F-ADAY history
From this page in French:

Le Farman F.60 Goliath « F-ADAY », (c/n 6833/39) construit en 1920 et acquis par la Cie Messageries Aériennes (CMA), En octobre 1927 il est mis au nom d’Air-Union, après la fusion de la CMA et des Grands Express Aérien, avec le nom  “Alsace”. Le 24 mai 1926, il s’écrase en phase d’atterrissage près de Littlestone (Kent). En octobre 1927, l’avion est reconstruit et il devient un F.63bis. Il finit sa carrière comme avion postal et n’apparait plus sur les registres en octobre 1931.

in English:

Farman F.60 Goliath « F-ADAY », (c/n 6833/39) built in 1920, owned by Cie Messageries Aériennes (CMA), in October 1927 transferred to Air-Union, after the merge between CMA and Grands Express Aérien, under the name “Alsace”. On 24 May 1926, it crashed while approaching Littlestone (Kent). Rebuilt in October 1927 as a F.63bis. Ends its carrier as postal carrier and disappears from registers in October 1931.

From Flickr:

Photo by skylarkair.
This aircraft also appeared in the silent movie L'autre aile (watch it here).
Crashes

The crash didn't look terrible

From the insurance expert's report (August 1921):

Assessment of the airworthiness of F-ADAY Farman Goliath to return to Le Bourget for repair after temporary fixes following in which part of the undercarriage sank into a cover trench during take-off. It concludes that without further repairs on-site and trials the return flight would be at the owner's risk. Client: The White Cross Aviation Insurance Association.

After the May 1926 crash, it was rebuilt, improved as a F.63bis:

Source.
F-ADAY registration

what do the call letters [F-ADAY] mean?

It just happened to be the next sequential entry in the French register. F-AD prefix was used for year 1920, and CMA registered several aircraft: F-ADAT, F-ADAU, F-ADAV and F-ADAY.

Source.
More info

Also, would there be any way to find out more about this specific aircraft?

You can always search on the aircraft ID when it's available, it's the most efficient way. Corresponding results: From Bing and from Google.

Thank you! It's incredible how much info you knew or could get. I did web searching for hours, and came up with so little in comparison.

I just watched the movie, and I saw the F-ADAY twice.

One thing I'm confused about; it says in your French to English translated section that it was built in 1920, but the call letters indicate 1921 according to the call letter link you added. The negatives I have are dated as August 1920, and was taken on a world (European?) cruise. The photographer (great-great, or great-grandfather) had notes and years on each negative, so I feel certain the 1920 is correct. But why then would the call letters assigned be from 1921?

@KirkS: I noted this inconsistency. According to this 1984 magazine the aircraft was built in 1921. According to this 11/1922 publication, it entered into operations at CMA on 26/06/1921. The problem is errors are usually copy-pasted and propagate. If you need an official answer, it might possible to contact the French DGAC via their archive section.

@KirkS: Another source which seems more reliable, using the Véritas (insurance certification agency) register, the registration date is 1920 (p. 8).


text:
How is the range/fuel computed when there is a 3-hour difference for the same route?
I am not a pilot. I recently took a trip SIN-SFO 14 hours (tailwind) and SFO-SIN 17 hours (headwind), flying United.
According to the Dreamliner Wikipedia page, the 787 range is 7,635 nmi (14,140 km), where the distance SIN-SFO is 8,447 mi.

How is the range rating computed? In the example above, there are 3 hours difference in flight time for the same range.
What is the difference in fuel consumption on the two trips (rough average)?

According to 'How does wind affect the airspeed that I should fly for maximum range in an airplane?':

If you have a headwind, the longer you stay aloft, the more you are carried back, so you better hurry up. With a tailwind, it helps to slow down because now the wind is helping you to cover even more distance.

*

SFO = San Francisco

SIN = Singapore

Related: How can the range of an aircraft be calculated given real wind conditions?

I think you have your headwind and tailwind reversed.

If you have a headwind, the longer you stay aloft, the more you are carried back, so you better hurry up. With a tailwind, it helps to slow down because now the wind is helping you to cover even more distance. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3612/how-does-wind-affect-the-airspeed-that-i-should-fly-for-maximum-range-in-an-airp

@RonBeyer is correct, and the above understanding of headwind/tailwind is confusing various elements. Yes, an aircraft will fly faster into a headwind and slower with a tailwind, BUT not so much as to make the "with tailwind" flight take longer than the "against headwind" flight. Prevailing trans-Pacific winds are west-to-east; the SIN-SFO leg had a TAILWIND and the SFO-SIN leg had a HEADWIND. Until that concept is grasped, discussions of range computations and the multiple factors that affect that are like teaching Algebra to third-graders.

It would help those of us who haven't memorized a list of all the 3-letter airport codes in the world if you would just say where those places are.

The distance according to your great circle mapper is 7,339 nmi, "8447" is statute miles. A nautical mile is based on one minute of latitude and is approximately 1.15 times longer than a statute mile.

Flight planning is based primarily on time not on ground distance, by this I mean fuel burn is in pounds per hour at a given airspeed, not pounds per mile or miles per pound. Airplanes come with pages of charts showing fuel burn at many combinations of airspeeds, gross weights, altitudes, and temperatures. They also come with fuel and time required to climb to various altitudes and fuel used during startup and taxi.
Modern airline dispatchers use computer programs to calculate the actual time and fuel burn with more precision(interpolating between data points), and importantly with great speed.
A flight leg for fuel planning is a segment between navigation fixes and is commonly 50-300 miles. Even when crossing the ocean there are charted navigation fixes where pilots report to ATC over the radio.
The older manual method was to calculate tailwind or headwind for each leg of the proposed route based on weather forecasts and then calculate time en-route for each leg based on a desired cruise airspeed.(climb and decent are special legs, also included) This time is used for a rough estimate of total fuel burn for the flight to then get a close estimate of gross takeoff weight. The estimate of gross takeoff weight is then used to calculate the fuel consumption for the first leg of the flight, the fuel consumed on the first leg is then subtracted from gross weight to get a new gross weight and rate of fuel consumption for the second leg of the flight. This sequence continues for each leg. Then sum all of the fuel burned on each leg of the route (along with reserve fuel) add this fuel weight to the empty weight and payload weight. Finally check to make sure the flight is within limits by comparing the total fuel needed to the rated fuel tank capacity and checking the total weight sum is less than the allowed maximum takeoff weight of the airplane for the specific departure runway length, climb-out obstacle clearance gradient, and current headwind.
The maximum takeoff weight for a certain set of airport conditions is the common limit on range, the airplane's published maximum structural takeoff weight or fuel tank capacity are less often the limiting factors. Landing is rarely a limit simply because a safe takeoff and climb requires a much longer runway[accelerate plus stop] and a lower obstacle clearance slope [with one engine failure] than is needed for a landing; and you would not purposefully land at an airport that would not also allow a safe departure with a reasonable load. I bring this up because it is possible that if prevailing winds are reliable through the year, and if the physical takeoff limits at SIN are different from SFO, the route could be designed such that a 17 hour flight is only allowable in one direction.


text:
Can a plane bank without turning?
Can planes bank without turning, and if so, how is it possible?
A plane's wing is designed to naturally create lift; the explanation for that is that the greater speed of the air moving over the wing reduces the air pressure above the wing and air pressure from underneath pushes the wing up.
But when the plane is tilted to the left or right relative to Earth's surface and gravity, shouldn't it be "pushed" to the left or right?

Related: Can you fly an airplane at a 90° roll angle without losing altitude?

I think the  term "roll" would be better than "bank" here.

@CarlWitthoft "To bank" just means "to fly with a roll angle other than zero," does it not? "Bank angle" and "roll angle" are used more or less interchangeably, as far as I know. Although, when used as verbs, I normally think of "bank" as "flying with a bank angle other than zero" and "roll" as "changing bank angle."

argh! that explanation is wrong!

"the explanation for that is that the greater speed of the air moving over the wing reduces the air pressure above the wing" This isn't actually true - the air going over the wing doesn't have to take the same amount of time passing over the wing as the air underneath the wing. How lift actually works is a bit more complicated than that, but I think that would be worthy of a Question in its own right.

Yes it can. The steady-heading sideslip (SHSS) maneuver is used in flight testing to demonstrate static lateral/directional stability (similar maneuvers exist as sideslip approach in crosswind, or stabilized control with one-engine-inoperative at low speed). In this maneuver, rudder is applied to hold a sideslip, which generates an opposing side force and rolling moment. The rolling moment is neutralized via ailerons, and the side force is canceled out by banking to the opposite side. Once at steady-state, the aircraft is maintaining a rectilinear course, while banked.

Adapted from NASA IS-97/08-DFRC-01

Thanks--I need to learn some of these things--I'm interested in aviation.

Not just flight testing; it's standard procedure for a cross-wind landing.

@PeteBecker Modified to mention other similar maneuvers.

This is often called rolling on a heading.

@David Dutch roll? That's completely different from what I'm talking about. SHSS is a quasi-steady maneuver.

@JZYL If you freeze a dutch roll at any point, you will find the plane in this exact configuration. Rolling on a heading tests your ability to get the plane into an SHSS configuration or keep a plane on one. By analogy, holding a constant distance from the car ahead of you is quasi-steady, but one way to practice it would be to have the car ahead of you constantly changing speed.

@David You can't freeze a DR: the airplane has non-zero yaw/roll rate at every point in time. It is a rigid body mode. In an SHSS, all rates are zero, and the airplane is at steady-state. They are completely different. In fact, one of the design goals of FBW transport aircraft is to suppress/eliminate DR; yet, being able to conduct a SHSS is a certification requirement.

Yes, it's entirely possible. You can use the rudder to oppose the turn induced by the roll, and thus fly straight. However, doing so means that your nose is pointed off at an angle from your direction of flight, so this dramatically increases drag.
In fact, this is a common technique (at least among general aviation pilots) for losing altitude without increasing your airspeed during landing, if you're too high and fast to make it down to the runway otherwise. You're actually required to demonstrate this technique (called a forward slip) in order to get your pilot's license.

IDK.  It's one of those "explain how you ride a bicycle" things, but as I think of doing a slip, I don't see it as banking.  Rather, I use rudder to put the fuselage at an angle to the airstream, and use aileron to hold the wings level.

@jamesqf Same - it took me a second to realise what he was referring too

@jamesqf If you bank over, then observe how the aircraft starts to turn, and then apply rudder to counter it, it's different to applying rudder, observing the induced roll, and then using aileron to counter... but once you've got both control inputs on and the aircraft is now in a steady-state sideslip, it's the same regardless of how you got there, and the difference is largely semantic. A fluent pilot might even make both inputs simultaneously.

Here are two questions back at you.
Can a plane turn, with banking?
Yes, of course it can, the normal way using the ailerons to tilt the airplane and thus change the angle of lift.   You already know all about that.
Can a plane turn, without banking?
Yes, it can; by using the rudder to do the turning it can pull off a “flat turn” as it were.
OK... are you getting any clever ideas?  I bet you are.
Can it do both at once?
You bet.
Can it do both at once, turning equal but opposite?
Yes.  The pilot can make the two turns cancel each other out, so the plane goes in a straight line after all.
What is not canceled out? The aileron banking.  That still happens.  So there you are flying straight and tilted.
Of course this creates a lot of drag, and is a huge fuel waster... so I wouldn’t do it at cruise.  But if you’re on approach and you have extra kinetic energy to dump, it can be a good plan.
Assuming you’re not flying an F-14 Tomcat.  Kara Hultgreen tried that, and the Tomcat did not like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen Link to her Wikipedia page

@JorenVandamme Oof--her death sounds scary. The Radar Intercept Officer must feel bad.

Can planes bank without turning

Yes, a plane may fly in a banked attitude without turning.

But when the plane is tilted to the left or right relative to Earth's
surface and gravity, shouldn't it be "pushed" to the left or right?

Yes, whenever a plane is banked and the wing is generating lift, the lift vector has a horizontal component that tends to "push" the plane to the side, i.e. tends to make the flight path curve1.  If the plane is banked and still is travelling in a straight line, some other force must be opposing the horizontal component of the lift vector.  That other force is typically the "sideways lift" force generated by making the fuselage fly sideways through the air, so that it acts like an airfoil-- like a "mini wing".
Here's how it works in actual practice-- use the ailerons to roll left.  As the bank angle increases, the plane will tend to turn left, but you can prevent this by applying right rudder as needed to hold the heading constant.  The wind (airflow) is now hitting the left side of the fuselage and creating a force toward the right that opposes the force from the banked wing.  Once you reach your desired bank angle, you can relax some of your aileron input, but you'll typically2 need to maintain some amount of left aileron deflection, or else the bank angle will start to decrease, due to the aerodynamic effects of the sideways airflow created by the right rudder input.  So you are holding left aileron and right rudder, and you are flying sideways through the air at a constant bank angle without actually turning.  This is called a "cross-controlled sideslip".
Footnotes--
1-- unless the wing is "unloaded" to the zero-lift angle-of-attack, as would be the case in a sustained 90-degree "knife-edge" maneuver.
2-- an exception would be an aircraft with no coupling between slip and roll, such as an aircraft optimized for aerobatics with a mid-mounted wing with zero sweep or dihedral.  In such an aircraft, the aileron input could be relaxed all the way to zero once the desired bank angle is reached, and the aircraft would remain in a banked attitude.  In such an aircraft, the sideslip could be maintained with rudder deflection alone.  There are even some aircraft that actually require the ailerons to be deflected in the same direction as the rudder, rather than the opposite direction, to maintain a constant bank angle during a sideslip, but these are unusual cases.  In most aircraft, the rudder and aileron inputs must be "crossed" to maintain a steady-state sideslip with constant heading and bank angle.

The short answer is yes. A coordinated turn has both bank and yaw induced simultaneously in the same direction. If you induce enough yaw in the opposite direction of the bank, the aircraft will fly in a straight line even though the wings are not level. You do this by cross controlling the aircraft. In laymen’s terms, that means you turn the yoke to the right while pressing the left rudder pedal, or turn the yoke to the left while pressing the right rudder pedal. This is called a slip.
Pilots utilize a slip for various purposes. Banking the aircraft will increase the horizontal (Left and right) component of lift, and reduce the vertical (up and down) component of lift. This is very useful in a number of circumstances.
Pilots adjust their roll and yaw inputs in order to let the horizontal component of lift counteract the force of a crosswind while keeping the ground track of the aircraft consistent with the runway direction and the nose (heading) aligned with the runway. In a strong crosswind, the plane will land on one (the upwind) main landing gear first while remaining in line with and traveling Down the runway. This is called a side slip.
Pilots will also adjust their roll inputs in order to drastically reduce the amount of vertical component of lift. The right  amount of yaw will angle the nose of the aircraft out of its most efficient and streamlined position in the slipstream and/or relative wind. The combination of the two will keep the aircraft moving on a consistent ground track while increasing the aircraft’s descent rate. Normally, increasing the aircraft’s descent rate would create a corresponding increase in airspeed. But, since the aircraft is no longer moving in an efficient, streamlined manner, there is an increase in drag. Therefore, the pilot can have an increased descent rate without an increase in airspeed. Pilots will do this to lose altitude quickly, or to descend for landing without flaps to slow them down. This is called a forward slip.
Sometime pilots will perform a slip in order to get a better view of an object. Whether it is an object on the ground like the airfield or even another aircraft in the air at a lower altitude, it is sometimes helpful to bank the aircraft to get a better view of the object. This is especially true with low wing aircraft.

Yes you can bank an aircraft without turning it, provided you do not load the wing ie maintain zero angle of attack, and therefore zero lift.
The downside to this is that, in doing so, you are now in free fall as there is no force to counteract gravity*.  You will only be able to maintain such a condition for brief periods without reloading the wing to maintain altitude.  If you do so while rolled into a bank, the aircraft will start to turn again.  Aerobatic pilots do this on a regular basis in maneuvers like slow rolls, knife edge passes, etc.
*this does not take into account the force of thrust in high pitch maneuvers, lift from the fuselage and other airframe structures, etc.

This answer seems overly complicated.  How about a simple cross-controlled sideslip?

That's a convoluted way of doing a simple maneuver. You can just slip it and not worry about falling from the sky.


text:
What policies, technologies, equipment, etc is used to mitigate liquid spills in the cockpit especially during turbulence?
While reading this stack exchange question about waterproofing cockpits, I wondered what common industry practices as well as personal practices are in place to mitigate spills and damage.
Type of cups, serving times, cupholder design and placement, length and altitude of flights, weather considerations and sterile cockpits for example.
Additionally, are reportable spill events so uncommon as to not warrant mitigating procedures and design practices?

Related: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13534/are-the-instrument-panels-in-the-cockpit-spill-waterproof

Usually a lap is involved, with pants/trousers taking the hit...

@CrossRoads But not if you're Bob Hoover doing a barrel roll... ;-)

Well, that takes a little more practice :o)

Keeping the cockpit clean is a major consideration for airlines. The inflight team will scheduled meal times accordingly with reports from ARTCC and other aircraft on a similar routes. They tend to stagger their eating times, so one pilot can be the PIC and the other can eat. Once he/she is done eating they will switch. Here you can find a link explaining Multi Crew Operations. Hope this helps!

PIC (Pilot In Command) tends to stay PIC throughout the flight. Are you referring to PF/PM roles?

Yes, the captain is usually the PIC, but they will switch off control of the plane with verbal commands. "I have the plane" "you have the plane"

Meals can be planned around high work load and expected weather but this ignores 1. Clear Air Turbulence 2. Meal time spills unassociated with weather/work load/crew duties 3. Non-meal time spills (COFFEE).

@AirbusLover The captain is by definition the PIC (Pilot In Command) regardless of whether s/he is PF (Pilot Flying) or PM (Pilot Monitoring). The manual you referred to contains some information about the role of the PF/PM. (In addition: in many (most?) airlines, the Captain and FO (First Officer) takes turns being PF)

I meant the pilot monitoring.

Having worked as a mechanic for a large Airline in heavy maintenance, I can tell you over the years many cups of coffee and drinks are spilled on the center console, electrical panels and connectors used in aircraft are designed for mitigating moisture entry into the equipment. most spills are more of a corrosion problem than a electrical one.


text:
Why do we complete wing bending tests?
My question is simple.. Why do we need wing bending tests, what can we learn from them and how can this help us evolve the product?

Finite Element Analysis should be backed up with a real-world test to verify the design. FEA software is very much "garbage in, garbage out", but you want to back that up before you produce possibly thousands of wings.

Just to be clear, are you asking about ultimate load tests like this one?

It ensures that the theoretical assumptions are correct in practice.
Therefore it save our lives.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."  Attributed (by some) to Yogi Berra.

Transport category airplanes, which includes most aircraft in commercial passenger service, must meet the FAA regulations in 14 CFR Part 25. Some relevant excerpts are as follows:

§25.305
The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure
§25.307
Structural analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases, substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to verify structural behavior

Ultimate loads are the absolute maximum loads that a structure must carry without failure. These are loads will be extremely rare and result in permanent damage to the structure, but with the structure still intact the aircraft should still be able to land safely.
The FAA will not certify the design if the manufacturer cannot prove that the structure is capable of meeting these requirements. One option is using computational simulations. Modern analysis techniques are very powerful. However, analysis is useless if you can't show that it is also reliable. Structures like wings are extremely complicated. Once the materials become permanently deformed, the behavior changes and the analysis becomes even more complicated.
So if you can't prove that computational methods will work, you have to do a test of the structure. Fatigue is similarly difficult to predict, so aircraft are generally subjected to multiple lifetimes worth of load cycles with special test rigs to understand how the parts will hold up.
When the Boeing 777 wing was tested, it failed at 4% over the required load. This shows that even the limited analysis capabilities (compared to today) were very accurate, but the only way to find out for sure is to test it. Analysis will always have some amount of error. If the analysis had been a few percent off the wing would have failed the test.
So the analysis for the 777 was shown to be reliable, but only in the case they tested. If a new design differs significantly, this adds some uncertainty into the analysis. Will it still be reliable in the new case? The only way to know for sure is to test it.

Accurate analysis is one thing, but you're also verifying your manufacturing capabilities.

Thanks for your answer. But i have to ask one more questions.. How do they operate this test? In which conditions which equipments? Can you please explain it? Thanks for your interest again it helps me a lot :)

@AlpcanKaraca those would be good subjects for a different question, feel free to post a new one.

Computational models are only as good as the assumptions you made when setting up your model. The physical world in general, and the mechanical behaviour of your wing, is quite difficult to describe mathematically. Even if we mastered the mathematical description, we can only describe what we know of the world. A good example is Newtonian mechanics, it was derived at a time when we knew nothing about relativistic mechanics. Now we know Newtonian mechanics is not the complete picture, but we also know, when it is good enough. Engineers do the same all the time, e.g. is steel or aluminium a linear material (strain vs. stress)?
Therefore, good engineering practice is to validate and verify your mathematical models. The worse the consequences of failure, the more testing is done. This is why aircraft parts are extensively tested, apart from regulations.
The complete test of an aircraft wing is the very end of the mechanical testing regime. It starts from the materials involved, goes over single components and their connections, to end at the level of sub-assemblies and the complete wing.


text:
What does 'intercept final' exactly mean?
I work as ATC in Korea. I have question about the exact meaning of the word 'intercept'.
In FAA order 7110.65, 5-9-1 vector to final approach course, "vector to intercept the final approach course", The Korean manual interprets the word of the sentence 'intercept' as "crossing".
I think the word 'intercept' means not 'crossing' but means the state just on the final, not exactly crossing but  just 'established'.
The reason why i have question about this is that in the PAR approach, for precision approach, the final controller can vector aircraft to be exactly on the final beyond the faf although he started control in the state aircraft is not exactly on final.
So I think 'intercept' doesn't mean "crossing" but something else... Because I'm not a native English speaker I want to know the exact meaning of the word 'intercept'.

Example: "ABC, turn right heading 020° for the intercept".

"Intercept" means roughly the same as "join". I'd make it an answer if I knew what the actual difference was.

You are correct. The verb intercept, as used by ATC and pilots means to track to and then turn onto a given course. In your given example, "vector to intercept the final approach course", a vector to intercept is a vector which will cross the final approach course and from which the pilot will be able to commence a turn to become established on the final approach course. To intercept the final approach course means to accomplish that turn onto the final approach course.
See this additional example from an excerpt from Section 4 of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)

5-4-3. b. 1.
(c) The pilot is not expected to turn inbound on the final approach
  course unless an approach clearance has been issued. This clearance
  will normally be issued with the final vector for interception of
  the final approach course, and the vector will be such as to enable
  the pilot to establish the aircraft on the final approach course prior
  to reaching the final approach fix.

I would reword is a vector which will cross the final approach course at a point where a turn onto that course can be accomplished. I would rather say: is a vector which will cross the final approach course and on which you will be able to commence a turn onto the final approach course. My reasoning is that your statement sounds like the point which intersects is the point where to turn, but you know that the turn commences before that intersecting point.

@SentryRaven Excellent point, I will incorporate that change. Thank you!

Thanks to your answer but i have a doubt still. If ATC vectors aircraft to intercept final, and then the aircraft is not exactly on or crossing Final approach course(when looking aircraft at PAR) , is that case success to intercept or fail? I think this case is sucess(even not exactly on final approach course and crossing..) am i correct?

@user12972, "exactly" is a matter of precision and the precision should be based on what the PAR controller accepts (I suppose they have some rule for that).

In geometry, the point where two lines cross is an intersection, and the point where a line meets the axis (another line) is where it intercepts it.  This is likely where these terms come from.
If you take the current location of the aircraft and extend the current ground track (the path) to the point where it intercepts the final approach course, that intersection is where the intercept occurs.
In ATC terms, when instructing a pilot *to intercept a course, you are telling them to transition from one course to the another like this:

Credit: Own work.
If they were instructed to not intercept the course, then they would be expected to continue on their original course (the black line in the picture above).  Note that when a final approach course is involved in this situation, to be extra clear the phrase "vectors across final" is used so that they do not intercept when they aren't supposed to.

needs at least one freehand circle


text:
What was the Sperry "Follow Up and Comp. Mech. (Type K9)"
I found online a "Computing Gun-sight" used in WWII B-24 and B-26 bombers:

Source
Sperry Gyroscope Co., Brooklyn, NY, part # 655432:

Source
I have looked through the Sperry Corp. Archives site to no avail. I think I own a rare relic of military aviation technology and I would appreciate any help to determine its value, as well as any information source to learn more about it.
I have several pictures available to send if that would help with identification.

I dont' have a good answer, but to start with this computer is associated with a sight. It controls a moving mirror stabilized by a gyroscope, and helps the gun operator to keep the target centered, and possibly to predict the deflection required to compensate for target relative velocity. See gyro-gunsight. Similar devices: K3/K4. K4 details.


text:
Is there a way to avoid fuel loss caused by vaporization from engine heat?
Concorde had engines directly attached to the wings, close to the fuel tanks. Some fuel was evaporated due to heat. What were the reasons to not use pylons or some cooling system to limit this effect?

What exactly do you mean by "struts" here? Do you have a link or picture?

Are you asking if the heat from the engines is vaporizing the fuel in the wings?  Therefore causing us to lose fuel?

ya! iam asking that.

So real question behind this is how much fuel is lost due to heat from engines mounted,directly next to the tank.

Not really. He is asking if there is a way to avoid this.

Lets not forget the wings are acting like giant radiators, especially at 60,000 feet.  Also factoring in is frictional heating at the leading edges at Mach 2.  With adequate heat transfer (conductivity through the airframe), it may not amount to more than a few degrees difference at any one location.  It would be interesting to see how much engine insulation was desirable, or if they did indeed use the frame and fuel as a heat sink.

According to this image of the locations of the Concorde's fuel tanks:
Borrowed from: ConcordeSST.com
and this image of the location of the Concorde's engines:
Also from ConcordeSST.com
It doesn't appear that there is a lot of room for direct transfer of heat from the engines to the fuel tanks.
Also of note, the Concorde's designers intentionally used the fuel for other cooling purposes:

The fuel is also used as a heat sink for cooling purposes. Surplus heat from the air conditioning and hydraulic systems from the constant speed drive and generator and also from the engine lubricating oil is rejected through heat exchangers to the fuel.
--ConcordeSST.com

Based on this, I would say that the amount of fuel vaporized by engine heat was minimal at best, and, therefore, of no concern.


text:
Can you identify this jet turbine stage?
I was just wondering if anyone could give me any info about this turbine rotating stage I picked up at a yard sale today.
The stage measures 8-1/2" to the outside of the blades. The only markings I can find are TCYC5065 TT6776.0. It has 58 blades on the disk.

given the shape of the blades that's more a turbine stage than a compressor one.

Details please! What an awesome find! How much does it weigh? Any plans for it? Can I move to your neighborhood? (what a bunch of cool neighbors!)

Clean it up really nice, and that would make an awesome veggie tray for the next social gathering. Veggies around the disk, a cup of dip in the center of the hub...

Thanks for the info. I know this was the last thing I expected to see at a yard sale. It weighs almost 9 pounds and didn't come with any paper work.  what do you think this was used for? Possibly a helicopter?

how much did you grab it for?

Yes, about how much was it ?!

What is this turbine part?
This assembly is part of the turbine used to rotate the compressor section of a Pratt & Whitney PT6, a free turbine turboprop. It's known as compressor turbine or just CT.
Where is it located?
The compressor turbine is located at the exit nozzle of the annular combustion chamber, and is the first component which enters in rotation under the effect of the hot gas velocity.

Compressor turbine. Source: P&W Training Manual
Actual engine:

Source: Youtube
As visible, there is a second turbine (made of one or more stages, depending on the PT6 model) further downstream. They appear to be on the same shaft, but they aren't. There are two independent shafts rotating at their own angular speed.
The compressor turbine extracts power to rotate mostly the engine compressor, which role is to feed the combustion chamber with compressed air. The other turbine extracts power used (mostly) for the aircraft propulsion.
Turbine blades material

Source
The blades, the hottest parts after the combustion chamber, are made of a nickel alloys. Nickel itself melts at 1,455 °C, and alloys are made more resistant either by solidified directional casting or single crystal growth (see more on materials). In larger engines turbine blades are often maintained below their melting point by circulating air in small internal channels. This is not the case for the PT6, gas temperature is still below the melting point (about 900°C).
Blades are protected by an anti-corrosion coating to delay as much as possible the inclusion of ion-sulfur into a material, a reaction known as sulphidation. Nickel sulphidation forms $\small Ni_3 S_2$ which melts at 635 °C. Sulphidation occurs all the time, but more quickly when flying close to sea water or industrial areas rich in sodium salts which can form sodium sulfate (more here). Frequent water washes of the turbine maybe necessary to eliminate salts.
Looking online for PT6 sulphidation, we can see a large number of investigation reports dealing with engine failures due to maintenance not done according to procedures.
About the P&W PT6 engine
The PT6 is a well known engine, available in various versions, which has been used for 50 years on aircraft and helicopters (but also on IndyCars, hovercraft, "turbotrain", snowplows....).

(source)
The particularity is the free turbine design. On large turbo-engines, the compressor (the low pressure compressor on engines with two or three spools) is on the same shaft than the engine output (which drives the fan, the rotor, the speed reduction gear,etc).
On a free turbine there are two rotating groups that are not linked by a shaft.

(source)

The first group is the gas generator section -- in blue, on the right hand of the images -- with a compressor and a combustion chamber. High pressure gas are sent to the last stage of the gas generator, which is a turbine stage -- the compressor turbine or CT, the one you've got. The CT drives the whole gas generator section and the accessory gearbox.

The energy used to move the generator section is only a part of the available energy in the hot gas (e.g. 66% on a twin PT6T-3D). The rest makes it's way to the mechanically-independent power section composed of one or more turbines, depending on the engine model. The turbines drive either the propeller, the rotor, or anything attached to the power section shaft, directly or via a reduction gearbox.

The gas production section can be spun (albeit at idle) wit the power section at rest (an helicopter turbine can be spun, while the rotor is maintained stationary).

I just spent 60 seconds and verified that it has 58 fins on it.

How did you find it? :D

How... do you know this?

You are all the way wrong. It is definitely a roulette wheel for aviators. No doubt.


text:
What does BUS mean in the startup procedure?
I noticed the term BUS in the startup procedure of a 737. What do BUS on, off and transfer mean and what is their significance?

A bus is a strong connection that distributes current. It's not limited to the conductive part, it is usually understood as including the switches and relays that manage its connection to the rest of the wiring.
(Keep in mind that with AC, when two different sources are used to feed the same component, frequency and phase need to be adjusted and must coincide, else energy would be lost, and voltage increased / decreased, possibly to a dangerous level.)
The transfer buses in that case have a logic detecting multiple current sources, e.g. battery and ground supply, and selecting which one to use to feed the bus. The crew has some authority on this process, using switches:

(Source)
There is one transfer bus on each side of the aircraft. They feed other buses, like galley and main buses, with energy, typically from the engine generators.
They are connected by the tie bus (between BTB1 and 2 on the image, it's name doesn't appear), for redundancy purposes.

Boeing 737 NG, modified (source)
Before the two engines are running (and their generator supplies current), the tie bus allows the ground power, or the APU, or a single engine to feed the whole aircraft.
Transfer buses can be disconnected from the tie bus for normal use, each engine generator providing energy to different smaller buses, creating a redundancy.
If one source fails, the other can feed the whole aircraft by connecting the tie bus. Another connection can be used on the DC part (cross-bus tie relay). This mode is useful and required when performing an approach with the autopilot (e.g. ILS cat III).
Conversely if one transfer bus creates a security problem, it can be switched off.


text:
Why does this Curtiss Kittyhawk have a Question Mark in its squadron code?
There is a Curtiss Kittyhawk 1V undergoing restoration in the RAF Museum in London, with an unusual squadron marking. A comprehensive history of the aircraft can be found here, which says:

The aircraft is painted in the markings of No 112 Squadron Kittyhawk
FX760 / GA-? Which operated in Italy with the Squadron between 3 and 22
June 1944, being flown in that brief period by Squadron Leader
Attearne [sic] DFC and F/Lt Reg Wild DFC RAAF

("Attearne" is actually S/Ldr Lance Ahern DSO DFC RAAF.)

Initially I thought it might be a placeholder, but there is at least one photo that shows it operationally with the question mark:

source
This same plane was also flown by Group Captain Billy Drake DSO DFC & Bar and is famous enough to be available in model form. It might be that it started life as a P and the squadron leader was having some fun, but the contemporary photo implies a measure of forethought. Under what circumstances would an RAF aircraft have a question mark as part of its squadron code?

It was fairly common to use “?” if there were more than 26 aircraft in the squadron. (only 26 letters in the alphabet)
Camouflage and markings of No.112 Squadron RAF,

“The second thing is the use of the query punctuation mark as an individual aircraft ident marking; the use of such symbols and shapes (such as, eg, colons, semi-colons, and diamonds) was not unusual in Italy when a squadron had more than 26 aircraft on strength, and the use of ”?” was the most common, even at times in the UK itself. Indeed, the ”?” mark was often used to indicate the aircraft of the squadron commander, though not always so as in the case of this aircraft. Once again this is painted over the top of the serial number, FX740.”

If the aircraft was shot down, or went missing, the “?” could be used on another aircraft.
http://raf-112-squadron.org/raf_kittyhawK_codes.html

So would the 27th aircraft get the question mark, and then the 28th a colon, etc.?

I don’t think it worked that way. The question mark was used more often than the other options, but I doubt it was the official mark of the 27th aircraft.

Thanks Mike.  If you find more details, I'm curious.  But it's just curiosity, so no need to waste any time unless it piques your interest too.  On second thought, I don't want to reduce the importance of curiosity, I just don't want to impose my curiosity on you!


text:
How to calculate forces and moments on an aircraft in ground effect
I am looking to calculate the six degree of freedom forces and moments (lift, drag, side force, roll, pitch, yaw moments) on an aircraft (fixed wing) in ground effect, but I do not know how to do this. Any suggestions will be very much appreciated.
Thank you

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

Hello Lilliane. What you are asking is kind of clear to me, as I have done something similar in the past. Knowing what is your starting point would help in giving you an answer.

@Federico thank you for your reply. I am basically trying to determine the change in lift, drag, side force, roll moment etc when the aircraft is in ground effect compared to out of ground effect. I cannot really find any equations to do this so I came on here

For the pitch effect of ground effect please see this answer

I am basically trying to determine the change in lift, drag, side force, roll moment etc when the aircraft is in ground effect compared to out of ground effect.

There is no way to do this in a reliable manner without conducting a flight test measurement campaign.
You can find rule of thumb formulas in books, such as Roskam's "Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance", but they will never be very accurate.
In Roskam there is a reference to "Fundamentals of Aircraft Design" from Nicolai as the source of a diagram linking $A/A_{eff}$ to $2h/b$, but no explicit equation is given.
Roskam provides the following equation for the change in effective angle of attack:
$$\Delta \alpha_0 = \frac{t}{c} \left( -0.1177\frac{1}{(h/c)^2} +3.5655 \frac{1}{(h/c)} \right) $$
Then, applying this equation they derive the change in lift coefficient:
$$C_{L_g} = C_L \frac{C_{L_{\alpha_g}}}{C_{L_\alpha}} - C_{L_{\alpha_g}}\Delta \alpha_{0_g}$$
For induced drag the following equation is offered
$$\Delta C_{D_{i_g}} = -\sigma' \frac{C_L^2}{\pi_A}$$
with
$$\sigma' = \frac{1 - 1.32(h/b)}{1.05 + 7.4(h/b)}$$
"Wing resistance near the ground" from Wieselberger, aka NACA TM 77 is cited as reference.
No other formula is provided.
Having tried to use this in the past, I would like to stress that these might be useful to get a feeling for the quality of the changes, but they are absolutely not a sufficient substitute for proper modelling or in-flight measurements to get a representative quantitative behaviour.

Thanks a bunch! which edition of the book are these in? do you know if there are any formulas for the pitching moment or yawing moment in ground effect?

@LillianneF there's no other formula. I think I have the first edition, but I can double check later.


text:
How do the various Weight on Wheels (WoW) systems work?
I know that Weight on wheels (WoW) switches indicate whether the weight of an aircraft is resting on its wheels. WoW information reveals whether the aircraft is airborne or on the ground. It also helps to ensure systems are enabled or disabled as befits the aircraft’s situation. Now, my questions are:

How a Weight on Wheel system functions in different jet types such as: Business jet, General Aviation jet
How do A2G and G2A communications depend on the Weights on Wheels system?

Most aircraft have squat switches on the landing gear that are depressed when the air oleo struts reach a certain compression.  I’m not aware of these system interfering with communication equipment, though they may prevent transmission of high energy RF devices such as WX or fire control radars, etc. on the ground for safety reasons.

I won't provide an "answer" as external links to answers are not acceptable and it would be a very long response. But I will provide this link to smartcockpit.com which describes the A320 Landing Gear Systems including the Landing Gear Control Interface Unit (LGCIU). the LGCIU receives inputs from switches and proximity sensors, applies various AND/OR logic to set a large number of discrete outputs. The outputs are used to control various systems functionality based on "In-air" or "on-ground".


text:
How to measure chord on a rounded trailing edge airfoil?
So, should I measure it by the rearmost point (in contact with the tangent line) or the point coinciding with the end of the camber line (represented by the line starting at the circumference center)?

It's probably easier to draw the camber line first.

The chord line is drawn as a straight line between the ends of the camber line.  Interestingly, with extreme camber, this may not be the tip of the leading and trailing edges of the airfoil.
The camber line is equidistant from the top and bottom of the wing. On a rounded tip, it would start at the equal bisection of the semicircle, just as you have it.

Practically speaking, does it matter?
You probably need a chord so you can non-dimensionalize data.  In that case, just be consistent -- use the same chord when you re-dimensionalize and it doesn't really matter what you choose.
This is why it is always important to communicate Sref and cbar with aerodynamic coefficient data.
If the airfoil without the rounded TE was 'known', then I would use the chord based on that original definition.
I.e. if the TE was blunt -- or thickened and then rounded, then the chord endpoint would be the center of the circle (marked by the x).
However, if the TE was truncated and then rounded, then the chord endpoint would likely be at some extrapolated point outside of the zoomed-in view.

I have an airfoil with a sharp trailing edge, but I had to thicken it by 3mm to comply with SAE rules and add roundness to the end. Now, I need to resize the airfoil back to its original chord length, but I'm not sure which point to use as a reference to the trailing edge. These images are of the airfoil with the rounded edge.
The chord length is important because I need the exact value to obtain the typical Reynolds number used in FSAE competitions.

So, what spot should i use as chord endpoint?

It won't matter.  What %chord is that 3mm?  If your Reynolds number is 500,000, will anything really be different if it is 505,000 instead?
If you were doing a more sophisticated calculation of the boundary layer, the actual Reynolds number on the wetted surface (which will be different for the top/bottom surface) would be more important than the Re based on chord -- and the wetted length is longer than the TE extension.  Why do you need to re-size the airfoil back to the original chord length?  Who is dictating this definition of chord within 1% ?

If you are worried about breaking some rule -- having too large a wing -- as measured by chord and span -- and therefore failing the pre-race inspection.  Then you need to look at the FSAE rules and find out how they actually measure the chord.  do they use a giant caliper?  Do they use a ruler?  Do they ask the team what the chord is?
I you understand exactly how it will be measured by the judges, then you should make sure your CAD model meets that -- with some room for margin (paint, stickers, etc).


text:
How do airlines train their pilots to deal with the stress of delays?
There are some good answers here dealing with boredom during long flights and with the physical stress of piloting, and with what pilots to do during a delay. I'm interested in how pilots cope with the mental stress of delays.
Consider - you're flying home, you've been sitting on the tarmac for three hours with no idea of when you're going to be cleared to take off, and your child has a birthday party you really want to make. Another five minutes and you're going to have head back to the terminal because of the mandatory rest period; the tower starts to give clearance to the planes in front of you but they seem to be taking an interminable time to complete their checklists.
These are the sort of things you face as a passenger; luckily for most of us they're pretty infrequent.
For a pilot, however, they must be quite regular, especially on certain routes. And the added complication is that the temptation to rush or cut corners could lead to disaster.
Do airlines have specific training on how to cope with the stress caused by  situations where they will find themselves under time-sensitive / delay pressures?

Robert Hays under pressure in Airplane!

Not a bad question for casual chatting, but this will get closed since any answers will be opinion based.  Yes, airlines do discuss stress management, but in a context that's quite a bit different than the examples offered in the question.

I'm not sure it is opinion based, but I've tried to clarify what I'm asking anyway.

The part about airline training on stress is specific enough, but the title question on how individual pilots cope is definitely opinion based because everyone is different.  And for the record, schedule delays are probably more stressful on passengers than pilots.  Pilots are on the clock and get paid either way.

Got it, changed it to what I meant to ask in the first place.

In many countries (but not the US), part of getting the licence involves sitting an exam specifically on human factors, both physical and psychological. A component of this exam syllabus is about stress identification and management. The airlines also have to conduct threat and error management training which should cover stress. This question can be answered without opinions.

Yes, I thought it wasn't opinion-based either but there you go.

Yes, but the question was very specific to delays.  Delays are just one small possibility in the list of things that might cause stress.

If you would like an experience based answer, I can provide one, but only my personal experience. @Ben 's comment is pretty good. It is also covered to an extent in CRM training.

(My answer is limited to carriers based in the USA, things can be very different in other regions, many countries pay monthly salary and culturally have different view of company expectation verses safety expectation)
Pilots are paid per hour of block time, they are getting paid for all that time waiting on the taxiway after leaving the gate and starting an engine. The flight plan will usually include an extra hour or two for flying to an alternate airport if the weather turns bad at the destination airport, this is not commonly used with modern forecasting but it is part of the plan. So generally a pilot should not have a strong financial motivation causing delay stress. If a poorly timed childrens party is causing distraction then my opinion is that the company should consider strongly encouraging this pilot find a less safety critical career.
Pilots in the USA in recent years do tend to get a lot of general stress-management guidance during training, even a fair bit at the private pilot level.(depending on the school) Often this training is lumped under labels like "Human Factors" or "crew resource management", and FAA materials even include specific advice for avoiding situations just as described in your question they call it "get-there-itis". The free FAA materials tend to be a bit superficial but better than nothing in calling attention to a possible problem, industry training courses on the other hand have some good depth. This type of training has been growing since the late 1960s, but it got a large boost in the early 1980s after the 1977 Tenerife disaster where a KLM captain apperently hot to make up for delays started takeoff without full clearance and slammed his 747 into a Pan-Am 747 taxiing in the fog, just at rotation speed, killing over 500 people.

As a pilot you get used to avoiding anything immediately after a duty. That's the best way to deal with it. The longest I've been delayed is 10 days during the ash cloud over Europe.

Welcome to aviation stack exchange! This answer doesn't answer the question on how they get trained on delays. Before you answer, make sure you read the question properly, and respond accordingly.

Most airlines do not give their pilots mental training. However, airlines may provide therapy sessions for pilots if they request for it, or decide that the pilot is not yet mentally prepared to fly. Pilots are also given mental screening. But other than that, airlines don't train their pilots for delays either because training is already too expensive, or they just don't expect that delays will happen.